sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items
List archive
- From: "Eric Sandall" <sandalle AT hellhound.homeip.net>
- To: <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 14:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
Ryan Abrams said:
> Andrew,
>
> I know your response is intended in sarcasm, but...
>
> We ARE a distro that aims to be 100% free.. or as close as possible.
>
> Now I don't consider myself to have the right to tell others what to
> use.. and if people want to use p4, thats fine. But Julian is right that
> we need to offer a way for people to be equal if they choose to take the
> time to learn the free software version.
>
> Basically, we need to offer our users AND developers the ability to stay
> 100% free. If that means dropping perforce, ok. But I think a two way
> sync would be fine by me. As soon as that is setup, we will script the
> grimoire pull from the cvs, which will be the "official" repository (as
> it looks better. But that doesnt mean the p4 server can't continue to be
> used and synced, if people prefer it.
>
> This whole "best tool" vs "free tool" thing can get emotional. Lets try
> to avoid that, and recognize that both sides are right (its purely a
> value judgement) - and lets do something that makes it possible for both
> sides to work together.
>
> -Ryan
Hence my remark in the initial mail that mentioned LKML as what we _don't_
want to happen. I would like us to decide whether we should sync the two
or choose one. My main reason for this is because Perforce pulls the CVS
updates when Schabell decides (this isn't bad, just saying it) and so
Perforce is mostly up to date, but CVS, on the other hand, does not pull
from Perforce. This means that CVS doesn't have the changes which the
Perforce users have put in, so some effort may be duplicated or not work
well due to the differences.
What I'd like is either Perforce and CVS keep synced with each other
within a good amount of time (every hour or so), or we move to one SCM so
that we don't have this problem.
The problem with moving to one SCM is that some people will not like it,
no matter which we go. As Ryan points out we are supposed to be a 100%
free distro, but not all of the developers use CVS (or some other Open
Sourced SCM). The LKML had a similar problem with Linus' decision to use
BitKeeper. I would prefere that we use an Open Sourced SCM, but it is not
requisite (too much PAM for me, trying to get LDAP to work, anyways :)).
It would also be nice if all developers saw what the others are doing,
right now only those on the Perforce list see the P4 updates, and ditto on
CVS. You could subscribe to both, IIRC, but heh. :)
As for the problems with CVS (i.e. directory deletion by developers), does
not subversion fix this? Or perhaps ark (I think it's been renamed, but
I'm not sure). And I've heard that subversion is (almost?) ready for
functional usage.
Lets keep this civil (we haven't had anything uncivil yet, but I just
thought I'd remind you guys. :)) and work on the solution, not the
problem. :)
-One of Three
--
Eric Sandall | Source Mage GNU/Linux Developer
sandalle AT hellhound.homeip.net | http://www.sourcemage.org
http://hellhound.homeip.net/~sandalle | SystAdmin @ Inst. Shock Physics @ WSU
ICQ: 667348 | http://www.shock.wsu.edu/
-
[SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Eric Sandall, 08/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Andrew Stitt, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Julian v. Bock, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Andrew Stitt, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Ryan Abrams, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Dufflebunk, 08/06/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce, Andrew Stitt, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Dufflebunk, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Ryan Abrams, 08/06/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce, Eric Sandall, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Ryan Abrams, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Andrew Stitt, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Julian v. Bock, 08/06/2002
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 08/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Eric Sandall, 08/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Jon Svendsen, 08/05/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce, Julian v. Bock, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 08/05/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce, Ryan Abrams, 08/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Eric Sandall, 08/05/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce, Sergey A. Lipnevich, 08/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Jason Flatt, 08/06/2002
- Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce, Eric Sandall, 08/06/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Jon Svendsen, 08/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Eric Sandall, 08/05/2002
-
Re: [SM-Grimoire]CVS or Perforce,
Andrew Stitt, 08/06/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.